M/S AMC, Chirala V. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Guntur, Guntur

ITA 305/VIZ/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 30525314 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K V N CHARYA
• Assessee Lawyers: Y SURYACHANDRA RAO; P GOPI KRISHNA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Diversion of income; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

MP NOS 83 TO 93/VIZAG/2007 ETC. AMC DUGGIRALA AND OTHERS. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL. NO. CASE NO. ASST. YEAR PAN NO. APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS 1 ITA 83/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAALA 0422G AMC DUGGIRALA ITO WARD-2, TENALI 2 ITA 84/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAKFA 7492G AMC TENALI ITO WARD-2, TENALI 3 ITA 85/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAALA 0446Q AMC REPALLE ITO WARD-1, TENALI 4 ITA 86/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAALA 0411D AMC PONNURU ITO BAPATLA 5 ITA 87/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAALA 0410C AMC BAPATLA ITO BAPATLA 6 ITA 88/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAALA 0789N AMC PARACHURU ACIT CIRCLE-1(1),GUNTUR 7 ITA 89/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAALA 0301L AMC SATTENAPALLI ITO WARD-1(1),GUNTUR 8 ITA 90/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAALA 0414G AMC GUNTUR ACIT CIRCLE-1(1),GUNTUR 9 ITA 91/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAALA 0307N AMC PIDUGURALLA ITO WARD-1(1),GUNTUR 10 ITA 92/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAALA 0455H AMC CHILAKALURIPETA ITO WARD-2(1),GUNTUR 11 ITA 93/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAKFA 4155G AMC KROSURU ITO WARD-1(1),GUNTUR 12 ITA 111/VIZ/2007 2004-05 AAALA 0301L AMC SATTENAPALLI ITO WARD-(1),GUNTUR 13 ITA 159/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAALA 0748D AMC MACHERLA ITO WARD-1, NARASARAOPET 14 ITA 160/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAALA 0640C AMC IPUR ITO WARD-1, NARASARAOPET 15 ITA 305/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAALA 0393A AMC CHIRALA ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR 16 ITA 335/VIZ/2007 2003-04 AAALA 0409K AMC NARASARAOPETA ITO WARD-1, NARASARAOPET 17 ITA 352/VIZ/2007 2004-05 AAALA 0411D AMC PONNURU ITO BAPATLA 18 ITA 356/VIZ/2007 2004-05 AAALA 0410C AMC BAPATLA ITO BAPATLA 19 ITA 357/VIZ/2007 2004-05 AAALA 0446Q AMC REPALLE ITO WARD-1, TENALI 20 ITA 358/VIZ/2007 2004-05 AAALA 0307N AMC PIDUGURALLA ITO WARD-1(1), GUNTUR 21 ITA 359/VIZ/2007 2004-05 AAALA 0422G AMC DUGGIRALA ITO WARD-2, TENALI 22 ITA 367/VIZ/2007 2004-05 AAKFA 7492G AMC TENALI ITO WARD-2, TENALI MP NOS 83 TO 93/VIZAG/2007 ETC. AMC DUGGIRALA AND OTHERS. 2 23 ITA 368/VIZ/2007 2004-05 AAKFA 4155G AMC KROSURU ITO WARD-1(1), GUNTUR 24 ITA 369/VIZ/2007 2004-05 AAALA 0414G AMC GUNTUR ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR ASSESSEES BY: SHRI P. G OPIKRISHNA, CA AND SHRI Y. SURYACHANDRA RAO, CA REVENUE BY: SHRI K.V.N. CHARYA, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 12.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .12.2013 ORDER PER BENCH:- THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEES STATED ABOVE ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HANDS FOR THE YEARS MENTIONED IN THE CAPTION AGAINST THEIR NAMES. THESE APPEALS WERE DI SPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL BY HOLDING THAT THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 1 0(26AAB) OF THE ACT SHALL APPLY TO THESE ASSESSEES FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATIO N, AS THE SAID SECTION IS RETROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE IN ITS OPERATION. SI NCE THESE APPEALS WERE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEES ON THE LEGAL POINT, THE TRIBUNA L DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS RAISED ON MERITS. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRAD ESH HIGH COURT, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.3.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.421/2010 (2011) IN THE CASE OF AMC TANUKU AND OTHERS (337 ITR 299) HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SE C. 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2008 W.E.F. 1.4.2009 SHALL HAVE PROSPECTIVE OPERATION AND ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE SAID PROVISIONS C ANNOT BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY FROM 1.4.2003. SUBSEQUENTLY, THESE ASSESSEES MOVED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS SEEKING RECALL OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ORDER TO DISPOSE THE GROUNDS URGED ON MERITS. ACCORDINGLY, THESE APPEALS WERE R ECALLED BY THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS COMMON ORDER DATED 13.04.2012. 2. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, LD. COUNSE L PLACED ON RECORD A REQUEST FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH IS A LEGA L GROUND ON THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND IS AS UND ER: WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER GROUNDS FILED EARLIE R, DIRECTION MAY BE GIVEN TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CONCERNE D TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND EXEMPTION U/S 11(1) & 11(2 ) OF I.T. ACT MAY ALSO BE GRANTED WHEREVER REQUIRED IN LINE WITH OTHER AMC S IN THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. MP NOS 83 TO 93/VIZAG/2007 ETC. AMC DUGGIRALA AND OTHERS. 3 SINCE IT IS A LEGAL GROUND, THE SAME IS ADMITTED A FTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. CIT(DR). 3. THE LD. COUNSEL IN COURSE OF ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT THE LICENSE FEE IS NOT TAXABLE AS INCOME AND REPEATED THE ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE STATED IN THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE ITAT. HE HAS REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RA ISED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. BRIEFLY THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE IS THAT NO SERVICE WAS PROVIDED TO THE FARMERS AGAINST THE FEE S COLLECTED FROM TRADERS AND THUS BY APPLYING THE MATCHING PRINCIPLE, NO INCOME ARISE S FOR TAXATION. THE AMOUNT COLLECTED BY THE MARKET COMMITTEES HAS TO BE SPENT AS PER THE BYELAWS AND THE RULES MADE THEREUNDER. EVERY PENNY COLLECTED HAS T O BE DEPOSITED IN PD ACCOUNT ON WHICH NO INTEREST IS PAID TO ASSESSEE. THOUGH IT I S CAPTIONED AS FEE IT HAS ALL THE TRAPPINGS OF TAX, BECAUSE THE BENEFITS ARE NOT PROV IDED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE AMOUNT IS COLLECTED. 4. BRIEF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED AT PAGES 21 TO 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE RECEIPT AND THE RESTRICTI ONS ON THE USE OF SUCH FUNDS. THOUGH EACH MARKET COMMITTEE IS A BODY CORPORATE, I N ESSENCE, IT HAS NO INDEPENDENT SAY WHICH COULD BE NOTICED FROM THE FAC T THAT THERE ARE NO INDEPENDENT BYELAWS FOR ANY INDEPENDENT MARKET COMMITTEES AND T HE SO CALLED DISCRETION VESTED IN THE COMMITTEE IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY SO MANY LIMITA TIONS, RULES BYELAWS, WHICH MAKES THE INDEPENDENCE, A MERE MYTH I.E., INDEPENDE NCE IS PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEES WITHOUT ACTUALLY THERE BEING ANY RIGHT T O INCUR THE EXPENDITURE FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES. LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO GIVEN CER TAIN EXAMPLES TO HIGHLIGHT THAT AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE AMOUNT WE RE COLLECTED FROM A PARTICULAR MARKET COMMITTEE. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE DU TIES AND SERVICES RENDERED BY THE MARKET COMMITTEES, THE LEGISLATURE NEVER INTEND ED TO LEVY TAX ON THE MARKET COMMITTEES. ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF RESTRICTIVE DEFINIT ION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY IN SECTION 10(20) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4. 2003, THE DISPUTE AROSE AS TO WHETHER MARKET COMMITTEES WERE LIABLE TO TAX UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. OMISSION OF SECTION 10(29) OF THE ACT AND AMENDMENT BY WAY O F ADDING AN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 10(20), COMPELLED THE MARKET COMMITTEES TO SEEK EXEMPTION OF ITS INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11/12A OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT AND AT THIS STAGE THE FINANCE MINISTER NOTICED THE UNINTENDED HARDSHIP CR EATED INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSABILITY OF THE MARKET COMMITTEE IS CONCERNED AND WITH A VIE W TO REMOVE ANY DOUBTS, MP NOS 83 TO 93/VIZAG/2007 ETC. AMC DUGGIRALA AND OTHERS. 4 INTENTION BEING NOT TO TAX THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES, THE FINANCE MINISTER IN HIS REPLY TO THE DEBATE IN THE LOK SABHA ON 24.9.20 08 ON THE FINANCE BILL, 2008 OBSERVED AS UNDER: 6. CLAUSE 3 OF THE FINANCE BILL, 2008 SEEKS TO AME ND THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE SO AS TO EXCLUDE ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDE RATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OR USE OF APPLICATION, OR RETENTION, OF THE INCOME FRO M SUCH ACTIVITY. THE INTENTION IS TO LIMIT THE BENEFIT TO ENTITIES WHICH ARE ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES SUCH AS RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF AND ANY OTHER GENUINE CHA RITABLE PURPOSE, AND TO DENY IT TO PURELY COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS ENTITIES WHICH WEAR THE MASK OF A CHARITY. A NUMBER OF HONBLE MEMBERS HAVE WRITTEN TO ME EXPRES SING THEIR CONCERN ON THE POSSIBLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON AGRICULTU RAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEES (APMC) OR STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING B OARDS (SAMB). SINCE THERE IS NO INTENTION TO TAX SUCH COMMITTEES OR INS ERT A NEW CLAUSE (26AAB) IN SECTION 10 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT TO PROV IDE EXEMPTION TO ANY INCOME OF AN APMC OR SAMB CONSTITUTED UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEIN G IN FORCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING THE MARKETING OF AGRI CULTURAL PRODUCE. 5. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE FEE IS NOT TAXABL E. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT SPENT ON CERTAIN SCHEMES HAS TO BE TREATED AS DIVERSION OF INCOME BY OVERRIDING TITLE BECAUSE THE FINAL BEN EFICIARY IS GOVERNMENT AS THE FUND HAS TO BE DEPOSITED IN GOVERNMENT TREASURY. HE SOU GHT TO RELY UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(XII) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ALSO IN THIS REGARD. IN SHORT, THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE IS THAT IN THE ULTIMATE ANAL YSIS, THE ENTIRE INCOME WAS APPLIED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE AND HENCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KARNATAKA URBAN I NFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE CORPORATION [2006] 284 ITR 582 (KARN.), THE AMOUNT SO UTILIZED CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. 6. AFTER THIS LD. COUNSEL ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE APPLICATIONS MADE TO CIT U/S 12A/12AA FOR THE REGISTRATION OF ASSESSEE WHICH ARE STATED TO BE STILL PENDING FOR CONSIDERATION. IT WAS URGED THAT IF THE LD. CIT GR ANTS THE REGISTRATION, THEN ISSUE OF EXAMINATION OF EXEMPTION OF INCOME UNDER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 11 IS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS REQUESTE D THAT FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE ASSESSMENT BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR CO NSIDERATION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE H IGH COURT WITH REFERENCE TO THE CHARITABLE NATURE OF THE SOCIETY AND GRANTING REGI STRATION TO THE SOCIETY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL POSITION, IT WAS THE PR AYER THAT ALL THE ASSESSMENTS IN MP NOS 83 TO 93/VIZAG/2007 ETC. AMC DUGGIRALA AND OTHERS. 5 THESE IMPUGNED CASES BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION ACCORDING TO THE LAW. 6.2 THE LD. D.R. HOWEVER SUBMITTED THAT LICENSE FE E IS TAXABLE AND REFERRED TO THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, GIDDALUR WHICH WERE EXTRACTED IN THE ORD ER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IN THE BATCH OF APPEALS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE O F TAXABILITY OF LICENSE FEE IS CRYSTALLIZED BY THE ABOVE ORDER, THEREFORE, THE ARG UMENTS OF THE COUNSELS ARE NOT TENABLE. HOWEVER, WITH REFERENCE TO THE GRANTING O F REGISTRATION AND EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUE ON SECTION 11, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE D.R. HAS NO INFORMATION AND ACCORDINGLY COULD NOT MAKE ANY PRESENTATION ON THE ABOVE ISSUE. HOWEVER, IT WAS FAIRLY CONSIDERED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS C LEARLY STATED THAT AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES ARE INTENDED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND RIVAL CONTENTIO NS. AS BRIEFLY STATED ABOVE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE BATCH OF APPEALS IN T HE CASE OF CIT RAJAHMUNDRY VS. AMC TANUKU IN ITA NO.421 OF 2010 AND OTHERS DATED 3 0.3.2011 CONSIDERED VARIOUS ISSUES, WHEN THE ISSUE WAS CONTESTED WITH REFERENCE TO RETROSPECTIVE/RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF SECTION 10(26AAB). WHILE CONSIDERIN G THE ISSUE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE AMCS IN 3 DIFFERENT PHASES. IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION TO AMCS PRIOR TO 1.4.03, PERIOD FROM 1.4. 03 TO 2009 AND AFTER 1.4.09 HAS BEEN CONSIDERED ELABORATELY AND DECIDED AS UNDER: EXEMPTION OF AMCS AS LOCAL AUTHORITIES THE EXEMPTION FROM TAX LIABILITY OF THE AMCS CONSTI TUTED UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH (AGRICULTU RAL PRODUCE & LIVESTOCK) MARKETS ACT, 1956 (THE AMC ACT), HAS A CHEQUERED HISTORY. IN VIEW OF THE ENACTING HISTORY AND PRECED ENT LAW, WE CAN VISUALIZE THREE DISTINCT PERIODS. SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT, EXTRACTED HEREINABOVE, E XEMPTS A LOCAL AUTHORITY FROM TAX. THE TERM 'LOCAL AUTHORI TY' WAS NOT DEFINED PRIOR TO THE FINANCE ACT, 2002. THE SUPREME COURT IN UNION OF INDIA V R.C.JAIN, CALCUTTA STC V CIT AND T HE DELHI HIGH COURT IN AMPC ADOPTED THE MEANING OF 'LOCAL AUTHORI TY' AS DEFINED IN SECTION 3(31) OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT , 1897. IN BUDHA VEERINAIDU AND KADAPA AMC, THIS COURT, HAVING REGAR D TO VARIOUS MP NOS 83 TO 93/VIZAG/2007 ETC. AMC DUGGIRALA AND OTHERS. 6 PROVISIONS OF THE AMC ACT, HELD THAT A MARKET COMMI TTEE IS A LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 INSERTED AN EXPLANATION DEFIN ING THE EXPRESSION 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' FROM 01.4.2003. AS A RESULT, UNITS OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT LIKE PANCHAYATS AND MUNICIPAL BODIES GOVERNED BY PART IX AND PART IXA OF THE CONS TITUTION OF INDIA, AND CANTONMENT BOARDS, WERE ALONE BROUGHT WI THIN THE EXPRESSION 'LOCAL AUTHORITY'. THE IMMEDIATE EFFECT IS THAT FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-2004 ONWARDS ALL AMCS WERE BARRED FROM CLAIMING EXEMPTION AS LOCAL AUTHORITIES UNDER SECTI ON 10(20) OF THE ACT. AMCS CONSTITUTED UNDER THE AMC ACT, OR AMCS SITUATE D IN OTHER PLACES CONSTITUTED UNDER OTHER RELEVANT STATU TORY ENACTMENTS, COULD NOT CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 01.4.2003 . IN NARELA AMC, THE SUPREME COURT WHILE REJECTING THE PLEA THA T PARLIAMENT HAD BODILY LIFTED THE TERM 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' UNDER SECTION 3(31) OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT WHILE INSERTING AN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT, AND AMCS CONTINUED TO BE LOCAL AUTHORITIES EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10(20) OF THE A CT, RULED THAT 'ALL THE AMCS AT DIFFERENT PLACES WERE ENJOYING EXE MPTION FROM INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.4.2003; THE ENTIRE DEFINITION OF 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' FRO M SECTION 3(31) OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT WAS NOT BODILY LIFTED AND INCORPORATED DELIBERATELY BY PARLIAMENT IN THE EXPLANA TION TO SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT; AMCS ARE NEITHER MUNICIPALITI ES NOR DISTRICT BOARDS UNDER THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 10(20) OF T HE ACT; AND THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10 (20) OF THE ACT AFTER INSERTION OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 1 0(20) OF THE ACT. THUS AMCS R WHICH WERE EXEMPTED FROM INCOME TAX TILL 31.3.2003, BECAME DISENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION DU E TO PARLIAMENTARY INTERVENTION IN INSERTING AN EXPLANAT ION TO EXPAND THE TAX BASE, AND TO PROHIBIT ALL LOCAL AUTH ORITIES EXCEPT THOSE MENTIONED IN THE EXPLANATION. IN OTHER WORDS, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.4.2003, AMCS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED LOCAL AUTHORITIES NOR WOULD IT BE SAID THAT THERE IS AMBIGUITY OR DOUBT A FTER 01.4.2003 AS TO THE STATUS OF AMCS BEING LOCAL AUTH ORITIES BECAUSE OF THE CLEAR LANGUAGE IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 1O(20) OF THE ACT, AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE SUP REME COURT IN NARELA AMC. MP NOS 83 TO 93/VIZAG/2007 ETC. AMC DUGGIRALA AND OTHERS. 7 EXEMPTION OF AMCS AS JURIDICAL PERSONS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY THE SECOND PERIOD IS FROM 01.4.2003 TO 31.3.2009. A S NOTICED SUPRA, UNDER CHAPTER III OF THE ACT, AN ASS ESSEE MAY CLAIM EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF TAX ON THE INCO ME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGI OUS PURPOSES. THIS IS SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO THE CONDITIO N THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAINS REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A A OF THE ACT. AN ASSESSEE, WHO IS COVERED BY ANY OF THE CLAUSES IN SECTION 10 OF THE ACT, IS NEITHER PRECLUDED NOR DISQUALIFIED FROM SEEKING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTIO N 12A OF THE ACT, ON THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 1 0 OF THE ACT HAVING BEEN WITHDRAWN BY PARLIAMENT, AFTER INSERTION OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT, AMCS IN MANY STATES SOUGHT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. THE JURISDICTIONAL COMMISSIONERS DENIED S UCH REGISTRATION AND VARIOUS AMCS APPROACHED COURTS. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND MARKET COMMITTEE, PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF IT V MARKET C OMMITTEE, AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN TWO DECISIONS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMIT I (1) AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SA MITI (2) RULED THAT, AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10(2 0) OF THE ACT HAVING THE EFFECT OF WITHDRAWING EXEMPTION TO A MCS, THEY CAN SEEK REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AS CHARI TABLE INSTITUTIONS AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. ALL THE HIGH COURTS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME C OURT IN CIT V GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT, EVEN IF THE SAID BOARD CEASED TO BE A LOCAL AUTHORITY', IT WAS NOT PRECLUDED FROM CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11( 1) OF THE ACT; AND, IF THE PRIMARY PURPOSE AND PREDOMINAN T OBJECT OF AN ASSESSEE IS TO PROMOTE WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THE PURPOSE WOULD BE CHARITABLE PURPOSE. THIS COURT, IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR V AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, GIDDALUR, CONSIDERED THE QUESTION OF REGISTRATION OF AN AMC UNDER SECTION 12 A OF THE ACT. IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS. MP NOS 83 TO 93/VIZAG/2007 ETC. AMC DUGGIRALA AND OTHERS. 8 ......WE ARE CONVINCED THAT AN AMC, CONSTITUTED UNDER THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE, IS DE RIVING INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY HELD UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATIO N FOR A CHARITABLE PURPOSE TO WIT THE ADVANCEMENT OF GENE RAL OBJECT OF UTILITY. IT IS, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO BE REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA TO ENABLE AMC TO CLAIM EXEMPTION AS PER LAW. WE HAVE REASONS FOR THIS CONCLUSION WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS. AMC IS CONSTITUTED UNDER THE STATE ACT FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PROTECT ING THE INTEREST OF 'AGRICULTURISTS, FARMERS AND GROWER S. THE PURPOSE OF MARKETING LEGISLATION IS TO ENABLE PURCH ASERS TO GET A FAIR PRICE FOR THE COMMODITIES BY ELIMINAT ING MIDDLEMEN AND PROVIDE REGULAR MARKET WITH ALL NECES SARY FACILITIES. SECONDLY, THE AMC IS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGA TION TO PROVIDE AIL NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE AND MARKET FAC ILITIES WITHIN THE MARKET PLACE/YARD IN NOTIFIED MARKET ARE A, INCLUDING WATER, ELECTRICITY, AUCTION/TRADING PLATF ORMS, FACILITIES FOR RECEIVING, PAYING AND DEPOSITING MON EY, AND RESOLVING DISPUTES. THIRDLY, THE INCOME OF AMC FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES - LICENCE FEES, MARKET FEES, LOAN S ETC., WHICH IS DERIVED WITHOUT ANY PROFIT MOTIVE IS TO BE USED TO MEET THE EXPENDITURE FOR PROVIDING MARKET FACILITIES NAMED SUPRA. FOURTHLY, ALL THE INCOME HAS TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE MARKET COMMITTEE FUND, OUT OF WHICH TEN PER CENT SHALL BE CONTRIBUTED TO THE CENTRAL MARKET FUND WHICH SHALL VEST IN THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH EXERCISES POWER OF SUPERVISIO N AND SUPERINTENDENCE OVER THE MARKET COMMITTEES. THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERS AND APPLIES CENTRAL MARKET FUND INTER ALI A FOR PROVIDING GRANTS TO NEEDY AMCS. FIFTHLY, AMCS SERVE AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF RURAL ECONOMY, I.E., PROVIDING FAC ILITIES FOR MARKETING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND PRODUCTS OF LIVEST OCK. EXEMPTION OF AMCS AFTER O1.4.2O09 AFTER INSERTION OF SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF AN AMC, FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM 01.4.2009, ITS INCOME SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME. I T IS PLAIN THAT, FROM 01.4.2009 AN AMC IS EXEMPTED FROM PAYING INCOME TAX NOT AS A LOCAL AUTHORITY', OR AS AN ASS ESSEE WITH THE INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD FOR CHAR ITABLE PURPOSES, BUT AS AN AMC UNDER SECTION 1O(26AAB) OF THE ACT. THE CONSPECTUS OF PERIODICAL TAX IMMUNITY ENJOYED BY AMCS IS AS FOLLOWS. FROM THE BEGINNING TILL 31.3 .2003, AN AMC WAS EXEMPTED FROM TAX AS A 'LOCAL AUTHORITY. F ROM 01.4.2003 TO 31.3.2008 IT COULD CLAIM EXEMPTION UND ER SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT SUBJECT TO SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS IN SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, INDISPUTABLY , IT IS EXEMPTED FROM TAX NOT AS A 'LOCAL AUTHORITY', OR AN MP NOS 83 TO 93/VIZAG/2007 ETC. AMC DUGGIRALA AND OTHERS. 9 INSTITUTION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE, BUT AS AN AMC ESTABLISHED UNDER A STATE LAW. THE EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAX UNDER ONE CATEGORY IS DIFFERENT FROM EXE MPTION UNDER ANOTHER CATEGORY. SECTION 10 OF THE ACT EXEMP TS VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF INCOMES, AS WELL AS THE INCOM E OF STATUTORY ENTITIES, CONCERNS AND INSTITUTIONS. ONCE THE INCOME, OF ANY SUCH ENTITY, STANDS INCLUDED IN SECT ION 10 OF THE ACT, NO ASSESSING AUTHORITY CAN DENY THEM TH E BENEFIT. THE SAME IS NOT CASE WHEN AN ASSESSEE CLAI MS EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT WHICH CAN BE DENIED WHEN THE CONDITIONS OF REGISTRATION ARE VIOL ATED OR WHEN SECTION 13 IS ATTRACTED. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO COUNTENANCE THE PLEA THAT SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT IS DECLARATORY IN NATURE. BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT, THERE WAS NO DOUBT OR AMBIGUITY IN UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAX AVAILED BY THE AMCS. AFTER INSERTIO N OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT, WITH EFFE CT FROM 01.4.2003, AN AMC CEASED TO BE A 'LOCAL AUTHORITY'. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBT OR AMBIGUITY ON THIS SCORE. THEREAFTER, BEFORE INSERTION OF SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT, AN AMC COULD CLAIM EXEMPTION, UNDER SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT, AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. HERE ALSO THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY OR DOUBT, NOR IS IT A CASE OF PARLIAMENT SUPPLYING AN OMISSION TO REDRESS, A HARDSHIP. IN THE PRE-2003 PERIOD, IT MAY BE REITERATED, AMCS WERE- TREATED AS LOCAL AUTHORITIES , BUT POST 01.4.2009 THEY ARE NOT TREATED AS LOCAL AUTHORITIES BUT ARE GROUPED AS A SEPARATE CATEGORY OF STATUTORY CREATIO NS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE ACT . THE SUBMISSION OF THE AMCS, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE ACCEPT ED. SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT IS OPERATIVE ONLY FROM 01.4 2009 AND IT CANNOT OPERATE RETROSPECTIVELY NOR CAN AMCS BE TREATED AS LOCAL AUTHORITIES UNDER SECTION 10(20) O F THE ACT ESPECIALLY WHEN PARLIAMENT ADVISEDLY INTENDED TO GI VE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT ONLY TO T HE FOUR NAMED CATEGORIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES, AND NOT TO A MCS. 8. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE DETAILED JUDGEMENT OF TH E HONBLE AP HIGH COURT, THE EXEMPTION WAS TO BE GRANTED TO AMCS PRI OR TO 1.4.03 AS A LOCAL AUTHORITY AND AFTER 1.4.09 U/S 10(26AAB). FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.03 TO 31.3.09, THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THAT THE AMCS MP NOS 83 TO 93/VIZAG/2007 ETC. AMC DUGGIRALA AND OTHERS. 10 ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A/12AA AND CAN CLAIM EXEMPTION AS PER LAW. THEREFORE, ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THEY ARE ELIG IBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 ARE TO BE ACCEPTED AND ACCORDINGLY SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THIS ASPECT, THE ISSUE HAS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FI LE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 9. INCIDENTAL TO THE ABOVE ISSUE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEES THAT AMCS HAVE APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A/12AA, WHICH A RE PENDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT. IF THE ABOVE APPLICATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPO SED OF BY THIS TIME, WE ADVISE THE LD. CIT TO CONSIDER THEM AND GRANT REGIS TRATION AS THE ISSUE OF CLAIM U/S 11 WAS ALREADY DECIDED IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR BY THE ORDERS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 10. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF CONSIDERING THE LICENSE FEE AS INCOME, EVEN THOUGH LD. COUNSEL HAS VEHEMENTLY PLACED ARGUMENTS ON THE ISSUE THAT ABOVE AMOUNT CANNOT BE TAXED AS INCOME OF THE SOCIETY, THIS ISSU E IN OUR VIEW WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT GUNTUR VS. AMC GIDDALUR, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: ......WE ARE CONVINCED THAT AN AMC, CONSTITUTED UNDER THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE, IS DE RIVING INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY HELD UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATIO N FOR A CHARITABLE PURPOSE TO WIT THE ADVANCEMENT OF GENE RAL OBJECT OF UTILITY. IT IS, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO BE REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA TO ENABLE AMC TO CLAIM EXEMPTION AS PER LAW. WE HAVE REASONS FOR THIS CONCLUSION WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS. AMC IS CONSTITUTED UNDER THE STATE ACT FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PROTECT ING THE INTEREST OF 'AGRICULTURISTS, FARMERS AND GROWER S. THE PURPOSE OF MARKETING LEGISLATION IS TO ENABLE PURCH ASERS TO GET A FAIR PRICE FOR THE COMMODITIES BY ELIMINAT ING MIDDLEMEN AND PROVIDE REGULAR MARKET WITH ALL NECES SARY FACILITIES. SECONDLY, THE AMC IS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGA TION TO PROVIDE AIL NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE AND MARKET FAC ILITIES WITHIN THE MARKET PLACE/YARD IN NOTIFIED MARKET ARE A, INCLUDING WATER, ELECTRICITY, AUCTION/TRADING PLATF ORMS, FACILITIES FOR RECEIVING, PAYING AND DEPOSITING MON EY, AND RESOLVING DISPUTES. THIRDLY, THE INCOME OF AMC FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES - LICENCE FEES, MARKET FEES, LOAN S ETC., WHICH IS DERIVED WITHOUT ANY PROFIT MOTIVE IS TO BE USED TO MEET THE EXPENDITURE FOR PROVIDING MARKET FACILITIES NAMED SUPRA. FOURTHLY, ALL THE INCOME HAS TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE MARKET COMMITTEE FUND, OUT OF WHICH TEN PER CENT SHALL BE CONTRIBUTED TO THE CENTRAL MARKET FUND WHICH SHALL VEST IN THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH EXERCISES POWER OF SUPERVISIO N AND MP NOS 83 TO 93/VIZAG/2007 ETC. AMC DUGGIRALA AND OTHERS. 11 SUPERINTENDENCE OVER THE MARKET COMMITTEES. THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERS AND APPLIES CENTRAL MARKET FUND INTER ALIA FOR PROVIDING GRANTS TO NEEDY AMCS. FIFTHLY, AMCS SERVE AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF RURAL ECONOMY, I.E., PROVIDING FAC ILITIES FOR MARKETING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND PRODUCTS OF LIVEST OCK. 11. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT INCOME OF THE AMC FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES I.E. LICEN SE FEES, MARKET FEES, LOSSES, ETC. WHICH IS DERIVED WITH A PROFIT MOTIVE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LICENSE FEE IS TO BE CON SIDERED AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND THERE FORE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE RECONSIDERED A FRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND TRI BUNAL ON THIS ISSUE. 12. ASSESSEE IS FREE TO FILE THE CERTIFICATE U/S 1 0 FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION IN CASE THE SAME IS NOT FILED, AS THE ISSUE OF FILING OF FO RM 10 HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF A MC GOPALAPURAM AND OTHERS IN ITA NO.227/VIZAG/2009 DATED 8.11.2012, WH ERE THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY PARA 6, 7 & 8 AS UNDER: 6. THE FIRST DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS WITH REGARD TO THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS. IN THE FORM NO. 1 0, THESE ASSESSEES HAVE STATED THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION AS UNDER:- FOR BETTERMENT OF MARKET COMMITTEE INCLUDING CO NSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURES, SPILLOVER WORKS, NEW WORKS, TO CONTRIBU TE FUND TO ANY DEPARTMENT AS PER NEEDS' THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SAID PUR POSE AS GENERAL IN NATURE AND BY TAKING SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF T HE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TRUSTEES OF SINGHANIA CHARITAB LE TRUST, (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT STATED ANY SPECIFIC O R CONCRETE PURPOSE IN FORM NO. 10. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF SINGHANIA CHARITABL E TRUST, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE THEREIN HAD LISTED ALL THE CHARITABLE OBJE CTS FOR WHICH IT WAS CREATED AS THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION. DEFINITELY THAT IS NOT THE CASE IN THE INSTANT APPEALS. IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE P URPOSE OF ACCUMULATION SHOULD BE PRECISE AND SPECIFIC AND FURTHER, THE PLURALITY OF PURPOSES IS ALSO NOT PROHIBITED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THIS ISS UE REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS HE HAS CONSIDERED THE 'PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION' AS STATED BY THESE ASSESS EES AS GENERAL IN NATURE BY FOLLOWING THE CALCUTTA DECISION REFERRED (SUPRA) WITHOUT NOTING THAT THERE IS NO PARITY OF FACTS. 7. THE SECOND DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS WITH REGARD TO THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING FORM NO.10 AS PER SEC. 1 1(2) OF THE ACT. WE NOTICE MP NOS 83 TO 93/VIZAG/2007 ETC. AMC DUGGIRALA AND OTHERS. 12 THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NAGPU R HOTEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE FORM NO. 10 C OULD BE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETES THE ASSESSMENT. THE HON 'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CTT VS. MAYUR FOUNDATION (2005)(274 ITR 562), HELD THAT, WHERE THE ASSESSMENT IS IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSMENT SH OULD BE TREATED AS PENDING, SO THAT IT COULD BE FILED EVEN AT THE STAGE OF APPEAL BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF MAYUR FOUNDATION (SUPRA), IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, POLAVARAM, REFERRED (SUPRA). THUS, THE VI EW ENTERTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDI CIAL DECISIONS. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEES IN FILING THE FORM NO. 10 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 8. THE THIRD DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS REGARDING ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS U/S 11(5) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY CONSIDER THIS ISSUE ALSO AFRESH, SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY SET ASIDE THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE EXAMINATION OF 'PURPOSE OF ACCUMULA TION' TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. CONSIDERING THE LEGAL PROPOSITIONS ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT AND TAXATIO N OF VARIOUS INCOMES AND ITS APPLICATION HAS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE AO IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND LAW ON THE ISSUE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER MAY CONSIDER ALL THE ISSUES AFRESH AND FOR THIS PURPOSE, WE SET ASIDE TH E RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE AO & CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOING IT DENOVO. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GI VEN DUE OPPORTUNITY IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEES ARE CONSIDERED AS ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH DEC13 SD/ - SD/ - ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) ( B. RAMAKOTAIAH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 13 TH DECEMBER, 2013 MP NOS 83 TO 93/VIZAG/2007 ETC. AMC DUGGIRALA AND OTHERS. 13 COPY TO 1 AMC DUGGIRALA 17 THE CIT GUNTUR 2 AMC TENALI 18 THE CIT RAJAHMUNDRY 3 AMC REPALLE 19 THE CIT VIJAYAWADA 4 AMC PONNURU 20 THE CIT(A) GUNTUR 5 AMC BAPATLA 21 THE CIT (A) RAJAHMUNDRY 6 AMC PARACHURU 22 THE CIT (A) VIJAYAWADA 7 AMC SATTENAPALLI 23 THE DR ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 8 AMC GUNTUR 24 GUARD FILE. 9 AMC PEDUGURALLA 10 AMC CHILAKALURIPETA 11 AMC KROSURU 12 AMC SATTENAPALLI 13 AMC MACHERLA 14 AMC IPUR 15 AMC CHIRALA 16 AMC NARASARAOPETA BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM